Oracle America, Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: May 23, 2022
• Docket: 4:16-cv-01393
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ORACLE AMERICA, INC., et al., Case No. 16-cv-01393-JST

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 9 v. PREADMIT EXHIBITS 2916 AND 3574; DENYING REQUEST TO 10 HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE PREINSTRUCT RE STATUTE OF COMPANY, LIMITATIONS AND TERIX 11 EXECUTIVE GUILTY PLEAS Defendant. 12 Re: ECF Nos. 1220, 1221, 1226 13 HPE’s motion in limine to admit trial exhibits 2916 and 3574 is denied without prejudice. 14 While the documents may fall within Rule 803(3)’s hearsay exception, HPE’s motion does not lay 15 an adequate foundation that the documents are authentic. HPE identifies nothing about the emails’ 16 “[a]ppearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in 17 conjunction with [the] circumstances” that would support a finding that the emails are what HPE 18 says they are. Jimena v. UBS AG Bank, Inc., No. 1:07-CV-00367 OWW, 2011 WL 2551413, at 19 *4 (E.D. Cal. June 27, 2011) (citing Lorraine v. Markel Am. Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534, 546 (D. Md. 20 2007); Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(4), aff’d sub nom. Jimena v. Standish, 504 F. App’x 632 (9th Cir. 21 2013). 22 HPE argues that “the documents contain all the distinctive characteristics of emails, 23 including the senders’ and recipients’ email addresses, the names associated with the email 24 addresses, the senders’ signature blocks, and the date and time of each transmission.” ECF No. 25 1220 at 10. These facts, which characterize most emails, cannot be enough by themselves to 26 establish authenticity, otherwise courts would be required to find virtually all emails authentic; 27 generally, there must be something more that establishes the likelihood that an email is what it 1 to Holmes v. N. Texas Health Care Laundry Coop. Ass’n helpful. 304 F. Supp. 3d 525, 535 n.5 2 (N.D. Tex. 2018). In that case, the party objecting to the admission of the emails had actually 3 produced most of them. 7d. Furthermore, at deposition “she did not deny the conversations took 4 || place or that the e-mail messages to which she . . . object[ed] were what they purported to be.” □□□ 5 There are no facts similar here. HPE’s motion to admit these documents now is therefore denied 6 || without prejudice. HPE can seek to have these documents admitted at trial. 7 HPE’s requests that the Court preinstruct the jury regarding the statute of limitations and 8 the the Terix executive guilty pleas are denied. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. ® 10 Dated: May 23, 2022 M JON S. TIG 12 United States District Judge

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28